Circular reasoning, also known as a circular Argument, is a logical fallacy that occurs when the premises of an argument rely on or presuppose the truth of the conclusion, and the conclusion, in turn, depends on the truth of the premises. In essence, it involves using the conclusion to support itself, resulting in a circular and uninformative argument.
| Aspect | Description |
|---|
| Key Elements | 1. Repeating the Conclusion: Circular reasoning involves restating the conclusion or a very similar statement as one of the premises. 2. Lack of Independent Support: It fails to provide independent evidence or reasons to establish the truth of the conclusion. 3. Circular Chain: The argument creates a loop where the conclusion supports the premises, and the premises support the conclusion. 4. Tautological: It often appears tautological or vacuous because it doesn’t contribute any new information or understanding. |
| Common Application | Circular reasoning can be found in various contexts, including debates, philosophical arguments, religious discussions, and everyday conversations when individuals inadvertently or deliberately engage in circular logic. |
| Example | “The Bible is the word of God because God wrote it, and we know this because it’s written in the Bible.” |
| Importance | Recognizing circular reasoning is crucial for critical thinking and argument evaluation because it identifies arguments that fail to provide meaningful support or justification for their conclusions. |
| Case Study | Implication | Analysis | Example |
|---|
| Religious Doctrine | Circular support for religious beliefs. | Arguing that a religious text is divinely inspired because it claims to be the word of a deity, and we believe in the text’s divine inspiration because the text says so. This creates a circular chain of reasoning without external evidence. | Claiming that a religious scripture is the word of God because the scripture itself asserts its divine origin, and believing in its divine origin because it is the word of God. |
| Begging the Question (Circular Fallacy) | Circular justification of a claim. | Using the claim itself as evidence to support the same claim, effectively begging the question. For example, asserting that a conspiracy theory is true because the conspirators are experts in concealing the truth, and we know they are experts because they’ve concealed the truth so effectively. | Claiming that a conspiracy theory is accurate because the people involved are skilled at hiding the evidence, and we conclude their expertise in hiding evidence because the theory claims they are experts. |
| Philosophical Circularity | Circular reasoning in philosophical arguments. | In philosophical discussions, presenting a premise that is equivalent to the conclusion without offering additional reasoning or evidence. For example, arguing that “I exist because I think, and I think because I exist.” This fails to provide a substantive argument for existence. | Asserting one’s existence by stating, “I think, therefore I am,” without further justification, essentially restating the conclusion in the premise. |
| Political Ideology | Circular support for political beliefs. | Advocating for a political ideology by asserting that it is the right choice because it aligns with one’s personal values, and those values are correct because they are consistent with the chosen political ideology. This creates a circular justification for beliefs. | Arguing that a specific political ideology is the best choice because it reflects your values, and your values are correct because they align with that ideology. |
| Pseudoscientific Claims | Circular validation of pseudoscientific beliefs. | Using a pseudoscientific claim to support itself, such as asserting that crystals have healing powers because people believe in their healing properties, and people believe in their healing properties because they have healing powers. This argument lacks empirical evidence. | Claiming that crystals possess healing powers because people believe in their healing properties, and people believe in their healing properties because crystals possess healing powers. |
Connected Thinking Frameworks
Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking
Convergent thinking occurs when the solution to a problem can be found by applying established rules and logical reasoning. Whereas divergent thinking is an unstructured problem-solving method where participants are encouraged to develop many innovative ideas or solutions to a given problem. Where convergent thinking might work for larger, mature organizations where divergent thinking is more suited for startups and innovative companies.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking involves analyzing observations, facts, evidence, and arguments to form a judgment about what someone reads, hears, says, or writes.
Biases
The concept of cognitive biases was introduced and popularized by the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Biases are seen as systematic errors and flaws that make humans deviate from the standards of rationality, thus making us inept at making good decisions under uncertainty.
Second-Order Thinking
Second-order thinking is a means of assessing the implications of our decisions by considering future consequences. Second-order thinking is a mental model that considers all future possibilities. It encourages individuals to think outside of the box so that they can prepare for every and eventuality. It also discourages the tendency for individuals to default to the most obvious choice.
Lateral Thinking
Lateral thinking is a business strategy that involves approaching a problem from a different direction. The strategy attempts to remove traditionally formulaic and routine approaches to problem-solving by advocating creative thinking, therefore finding unconventional ways to solve a known problem. This sort of non-linear approach to problem-solving, can at times, create a big impact.
Bounded Rationality
Bounded rationality is a concept attributed to Herbert Simon, an economist and political scientist interested in decision-making and how we make decisions in the real world. In fact, he believed that rather than optimizing (which was the mainstream view in the past decades) humans follow what he called satisficing.
Dunning-Kruger Effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where people with low ability in a task overestimate their ability to perform that task well. Consumers or businesses that do not possess the requisite knowledge make bad decisions. What’s more, knowledge gaps prevent the person or business from seeing their mistakes.
Occam’s Razor
Occam’s Razor states that one should not increase (beyond reason) the number of entities required to explain anything. All things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English theologian William of Ockham.
Lindy Effect
The Lindy Effect is a theory about the ageing of non-perishable things, like technology or ideas. Popularized by author Nicholas Nassim Taleb, the Lindy Effect states that non-perishable things like technology age – linearly – in reverse. Therefore, the older an idea or a technology, the same will be its life expectancy.
Antifragility
Antifragility was first coined as a term by author, and options trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Antifragility is a characteristic of systems that thrive as a result of stressors, volatility, and randomness. Therefore, Antifragile is the opposite of fragile. Where a fragile thing breaks up to volatility; a robust thing resists volatility. An antifragile thing gets stronger from volatility (provided the level of stressors and randomness doesn’t pass a certain threshold).
Ergodicity
Ergodicity is one of the most important concepts in statistics. Ergodicity is a mathematical concept suggesting that a point of a moving system will eventually visit all parts of the space the system moves in. On the opposite side, non-ergodic means that a system doesn’t visit all the possible parts, as there are absorbing barriers
Systems Thinking
Systems thinking is a holistic means of investigating the factors and interactions that could contribute to a potential outcome. It is about thinking non-linearly, and understanding the second-order consequences of actions and input into the system.
Vertical Thinking
Vertical thinking, on the other hand, is a problem-solving approach that favors a selective, analytical, structured, and sequential mindset. The focus of vertical thinking is to arrive at a reasoned, defined solution.
Metaphorical Thinking
Metaphorical thinking describes a mental process in which comparisons are made between qualities of objects usually considered to be separate classifications. Metaphorical thinking is a mental process connecting two different universes of meaning and is the result of the mind looking for similarities.
Maslow’s Hammer
Maslow’s Hammer, otherwise known as the law of the instrument or the Einstellung effect, is a cognitive bias causing an over-reliance on a familiar tool. This can be expressed as the tendency to overuse a known tool (perhaps a hammer) to solve issues that might require a different tool. This problem is persistent in the business world where perhaps known tools or frameworks might be used in the wrong context (like business plans used as planning tools instead of only investors’ pitches).
Peter Principle
The Peter Principle was first described by Canadian sociologist Lawrence J. Peter in his 1969 book The Peter Principle. The Peter Principle states that people are continually promoted within an organization until they reach their level of incompetence.
Straw Man Fallacy
The straw man fallacy describes an argument that misrepresents an opponent’s stance to make rebuttal more convenient. The straw man fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy, defined as a flaw in the structure of an argument that renders it invalid.
Google Effect
The Google effect is a tendency for individuals to forget information that is readily available through search engines. During the Google effect – sometimes called digital amnesia – individuals have an excessive reliance on digital information as a form of memory recall.
Streisand Effect
The Streisand Effect is a paradoxical phenomenon where the act of suppressing information to reduce visibility causes it to become more visible. In 2003, Streisand attempted to suppress aerial photographs of her Californian home by suing photographer Kenneth Adelman for an invasion of privacy. Adelman, who Streisand assumed was paparazzi, was instead taking photographs to document and study coastal erosio
